Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

Social Psych > Exam III > Flashcards

Exam III Flashcards

1
Q

Commitment:

Ex: Horse Betting

A

-Participants betting on horses
Dv: Confidence level

Cons:

1) Asked people before they placed the bet
2) Asked people after they placed the bet

Results: Betters in the post bet were more confident

Conclusion: They already made the decision/commitment, wanted to believe that they made the right choice.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Commitment:

Ex: Beach Thief

A
  • Confederate left their stuff at the beach unattended
  • Another confederate comes and steals stuff

Cons:

1) Asked people nearby to watch stuff (they agreed)
2) Did not ask people to watch stuff (control)

Results: Experimental group took more action against thief because they had made a commitment to watch their things

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Commitment:

Ex: Meditation Class

A
  • People attended class for help in their lives
  • A friend of researcher makes key points as to why the class is flawed

Results: People still signed up because they felt like they had no other options, so they wanted to commit to it

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Foot in the door technique

A
  • Ask individuals to do a small favor and then ask them for a bigger
  • People affected by this technique actually see themselves as more agreeable people

WORKS BC PPL WANT TO B CONSISTENT

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Foot in the door:

Ex: Would you allow researchers to come in your house and go through all your cleaning products

A

Cons:

1) Control: Did not contact before asking that question
2) Agree only con: Agreed to answer survey questions (didn’t actually do it)
3) Performance con: Asked previous smaller request 3 days prior to larger request, they did survey questions
4) Familiarization con: Contacts person twice, first to introduce self and then makes large request

Results: Performance group did the big request most often . This group was much more committed to helping because of the previous commitment that they made

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Foot in the door:

Similar issue vs Similar task (which smaller request works best to get ppl to agree to bigger request)

Ex: Put Ugly “drive safely” sign in your yard

A

Cons:

1) Control: Only asked participants the big request (sign in yard)
2) Similar issue and task: Small sign for safe driving
3) Similar task, diff issue: Small sign for keep CA beautiful
4) Diff task, Similar issue: Petition for safe driving
5) Diff task, diff issue: Petition for keep CA beautiful

Results: Best was similar task and similar issue

-Doesn’t matter is second request has a diff task or issue, people will agree bc they agreed earlier (committed)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Commitment strategies are more effective is they are

A

1) Active: People actually have to do something
2) Public: Other people know about it
3) Effortful: Want our efforts to be valuable and worthwhile
4) Freely chosen: When forced to do things we don’t take it as something important to us

-Also if written down you are more likely to commit to it

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Commitment (effortful):

Ex: Aids education project , asked students if they will participate

A

Cons:

1) “Please check this box if you will participate”
2) “Please check this box if you wont participate”

Results: People who got card has to send card back, hence putting more effort in, so more of them went

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Justification:

Ex: Initiation to group and discussion

A

Dv: Rating of discussion and members

Cons:

1) Severe initiation
2) Mild initiation
3) Control initiation

Results: Crazy/dangerous actions (hazing) are effective because you would never see yourself doing it, so you have to justify it

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Minimal pressure:

Compliance

Identification

Internalization

A

-Does action to/bc

Compliance: Avoids punishment/get rewards

Identification: Someone they admire does it

Internalization: Well researched, thought out choice

-w/ minimal pressure, people are more likely to follow through

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Reactance:

Ex: Toys in room, toy robot

A

-Told kids that they couldn’t play w robot then left the room

Cons:

1) Severe “Cannot play w robot”
2) Mild “Cannot play w robot”

Results: No kids played w robot

Follow up 6 week later: Diff researcher, told kids they could play w whatever toy they wanted. Severe group kids played w the robot more than the mild group kids

Conclusion: Reactance (Freedom being taken away in severe condition) so they want to play w it more

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Lowballing

A
  • Advertise something for a low price that entices the buyer, after commit to it, sales person hikes up the price w other options
  • Hard to walk away because you already committed to the deal

***WORKS BC PPL WANT TO B CONSISTENT

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Lowballing

Ex: College students participating in research study

A

Cons:

1) Good price, commit bad price
2) Lowballing group: Neutral offer, commit unpleasant offer (Study at 7am)
3) Control: Unpleasant offer

Results: Lowballing group showed up more because made prior commitment

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Lowballing:

Ex: Energy Usage

A

Same people:

1) Initial usage
2) Received info
3) After told of publicity
4) After told no publicity

Results: Constant decrease of energy usage

Conclusion: Continue decreasing usage because it makes them feel good, continue to conserve bc they already made a committment to conserving

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Justification:

Ex: Gives same vitamin to participant and partner confederate

A

Cons:

1) Confederate euphoric, side effects described
2) Confederate euphoric, did not expect side effects
3) Confederate angry, side effects described
4) Confederate angry, did not expect side effects

Results: People who didn’t expect side effects conformed to their partners reaction, bc they had justification to do so

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Festinger’s Theory of Cognitive Dissonance

A
  • People are uncomfortable when they are faced w being inconsistent
  • Attitudes and behaviors don’t line up
  • Want to feel better and relieve discomfort (w justification)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

Self-Categorization of Smokers who smokers who 1.5 packs a day

A
  • 60% labeled themselves moderate smokers

- 40% labeled themselves heavy smokers

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

Justification:

Ex: School Segregation

A

-View from the in favor position

Cons:

1) Argument opposed weak, argument in favor weak
2) Argument opposed weak, argument in favor strong
3) Argument opposed strong, argument in favor weak
4) Argument opposed strong, argument in favor strong

Results:
-Argument opposed strong, argument in favor weak (Gave ppl most dissonance bc farthest away from their perspective)

-Argument opposed weak, argument in favor strong (People remembered this the best bc it went along w what you believe)

Conclusion: Discomfort w opposing info, remember info that supports their side/opinion the best

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

Post-Decisional Dissonance Arousal

Post-Decisional Dissonance Reduction

A

Post-Decisional Dissonance Arousal:

  • Worry that you made the wrong choice
  • When you are faced w a big decision after you make it you feel uncomfortable feeling that you made the wrong choice

Post-Decisional Dissonance Reduction:

  • Once the decision is firm (irrevocable) you will feel this
  • Feeling better about the choice, emphasis the good in the choice and bad in alternative (Justification that you made the right decision)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

Ex: Rate household appliances, found two appliances rated similarly then asked them to take home one and rerate items

A
  • People chose item B
  • Rating of item A went down after they chose item B bc they want to justify that they made the right choice of item B or item A
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

Ex: Rating of attractive potential date

A

Cons:

1) Low commitment (single)
2) High commitment (Relationship)

Results: High commitment (Relationship) rated potential date lower

Conclusion: High commitment feel post-decisional reduction

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

Ex: Percent who made donations to heart association

A

Cons:

1) Not given a pin beforehand of association (control)
2) Asked people to wear a lapel pin

Results: People who wore the pin were more likely to donate

Conclusion: Cognitive dissonance if they wore the pin and didn’t donate so to relieve it they donated

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

Dissonance effects are the strongest when..

A

1) Decision is irrevocable
2) When your attitude and behavior are consistent (when self-concept is involved)
3) Isn’t enough external justification for your behavior
4) The outcome is inevitable
5) Your actions have consequences

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

Dissonance effects are the strongest when (irrevocable)

Ex: Photography class, can keep one picture

A

DV: Rating of selected photo

Cons:

1) Cannot change pic, (Irrevocable)
2) Can change pic whenever

Results:
Group that could not change pic (irrevocable) rated the pic they selected higher than control

Conclusion: Experienced the most dissonance effects

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
Q

Dissonance effects are the strongest when (your attitude and behavior are inconsistent; when self concept is involved)

Ex: Cheaters/noncheaters

A

Cons:

1) Cheated, small prize (Most dissonance, least justification)
2) Cheated, big prize
3) Did not cheat, small prize
4) Did not cheat, big prize (Most dissonance, least justification)

1) experiences dissonance bc they didn’t understand why they cheated for such a little reason/prize (attitudes/behavior didn’t line up) leads them to an attitude change that cheating is okay to justify their own actions
4) experience dissonance bc they felt like they may have made the wrong choice not to cheat bc it was such a good prize/good reason (attitudes/behavior didn’t line up) leads them to be strongly opposed to cheating to justify their own actions
- Other groups had big external justification for cheating or not cheating, unlike these groups

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
26
Q

Dissonance effects are the strongest when (your attitude and behavior are inconsistent; when self concept is involved)

ExL Heterosexual male participants

A

Dv: Penis circumference

Cons:

1) Non homophobic men, F/F erotic video
2) Homophobic men, F/F erotic video
3) Non homophobic men, M/M erotic video
4) Homophobic men, M/M erotic video

Results:
Homophobic men had the most arousal m/m, but said they were not aroused at all

Conclusion:
The homophobic men may have had interest in gay men, but decided to resist it (cognitive dissonance), so they change their attitude and become opposed to it to match their behavior

27
Q

Dissonance effects are the strongest when (Not enough external justification)

Ex: Very boring task, told to tell other participants positive things about it, etc

A

-Participants arrived one at a time, did a very boring task, fake debriefing “tell other participants it was positive bc roommate said negative things”

Cons:

1) Paid $1
2) Paid $20

Results:
$1 people rated task the highest because they felt the most cognitive dissonance (lying for a very small profit), they need the most internal justification to make up for the lack of external justification ($) to make them feel good about themselves

28
Q

Dissonance effects are the strongest when (your actions have consequences)

Ex: Legalizing marijuana speech

A

Cons:

1) Audience already in favor, paid 50 cents
2) Audience neutral, paid 50 cents
3) Audience already in favor, paid $5
4) Audience neutral, $5

Results:
-Already in favor group speaker did not receive cognitive dissonance no matter what they got paid

-Audience neutral group has the most dissonance when they were paid 50 cents because “I am convincing people of these issues and getting paid so little, I must believe it_
(Low external justification=need more internal justification)

29
Q

Dissonance effects are the strongest when (outcome is inevitable)

Ex: Female and female intimate convo

A
  • Looked at two folders of women, then told one of them will be their partner
  • Rated partner higher than other women
30
Q

Dissonance effects are the strongest when (outcome is inevitable)

Ex: Discussion about marriage (1hr)

A

Dv: How many people chose the negative person

Cons:

1) Allowed to choose partner
2) Given positive partner
3) Given negative partner

then told “oops” made a mistake, everyone can choose

Results:
A lot more people given the negative person initially stayed with their negative partner because they had already experienced cognitive dissonance, convinced themselves that they weren’t that bad (adjusted their attitudes to match actions/behavior)

31
Q

The issue of external pressure?

A

Reward applied to motivation, will behavior stop after rewards stop?

32
Q

External/internal interests:

Ex: Kids played w puzzles (treatment and follow up)

A

Cons:

1) Control: got to play
2) Ex: Got paid to play for right moves

Results:
Control played more in the follow up study, while the experimental group played less

Conclusion: External interests lowers internal interests

33
Q

External/internal interests:

Ex: Kids Drawing

A

Cons:

1) Expected award
2) No award
3) Unexpected award

Follow up study:
Dv: Percent of free play spent drawing

Results:
Expected award group= lower, then no award, then unexpected award (highest)

Conclusion:
-Unexpected award group does not reduce external motivation bc while they were doing coloring they thought they were doing it for internal motivations

34
Q

When are rewards not problematic

A
  • When given afterwards (w/o initial knowledge of them)
  • Based on quality vs just doing it
  • Add a label to keep them motivated (think they are good at something)
35
Q

Punishment

A

-High external= low internal

36
Q

Punishment on internal feelings:

Ex: Toys in room, pick out favorite, told not to play w it

A

Cons:

1) Mild threat not to play w toy
2) Severe threat not to play w toy

Results:
Mild threat thought it was less or the same desirable, severe threat thought it was the same or more desirable

37
Q

Types of influences

Compliance

Internalization

Identification

A

Compliance:
-Doing something to gain rewards or avoid punishment

Internalization:
-Doing something bc you’ve researched it well and thought it through

Identification:
-Doing something bc someone you admire does it

38
Q

Cognitive Dissonance:

Ex: Rating of Ikea Box

A

Dv: Liking/value of the box

Cons:

1) Had to build it
2) Didn’t build it

Results:
Builders liked the box more and thought it was worth more

Conclusion:
Builders experienced cognitive dissonance, a lot of effort went into making the box so they wanted to feel like it was worth more so their efforts were not wasted

39
Q

Effects of self esteem on actions:

Ex: College students, card game, cheating

A

Coverstory:
-Told Personality was being compared w ESP, gave participants a personality test weeks prior, received it them played card game

Cons:

1) Low self esteem group: (given their personality test w (fake) poor traits
2) High self esteem group: (given their personality test w (fake) good traits
3) Neutral self esteem: Given someone else’s that had (fake) neutral traits

Rested

  • asked to predict if they would win the hand
  • every once in a while the machine that shoots out the cards would shoot out an extra one (that rigged them to win the hand)

Results: Low self esteem people cheated most, then control, then high self esteem. (but findings were not significant)

Looking at the data a diff way:
LSE: Cheated: 13, Noncheat: 2
NSE: Cheated: 9, Noncheat: 6
HSE: Cheated 6, Noncheat: 9 
-This is significant

Looking at personality tests (Actual Self esteem):
LSE: Given low SE: Cheated most
HSE: Given high SE: Cheated least

40
Q

Application of Dissonance Theory

Ex: Safe sex

A

Cons:
(Commitment)
1) Commitment: to use condoms (vid talking about importance)
2) No commitment (draft out what they “would” say)

Cons:
(Mindfulness)
1) Mindful: (asked them to list scenario’s when they have been unsafe)
2) No mindfulness: Not asked to list anything

Then asked participants to put an “x” from 0%-100% on intentions to use condoms in the future, gave them the option to take condoms and pamphlets

Results:

  • Mindful and committed group took the most condoms
  • Commitment and mindful group felt the most hypocrisy, most cognitive dissonance to relieve tell themselves that they will practice safe sex more

Follow up:
3 months later, called and asked if they had been using condoms
-Hypocrisy group still reported more safe sex

41
Q

Application of dissonance theory:

Ex: Water conservation

A

Dv: Time in shower after pool

Cons:
(commitment)
1) write name on conservation flyer
2) No commitment

Cons:
(Mindfulness)
1) Took survey to make people feel wasteful
2) No mindfulness

Results:
Commitment and mindfulness group felt hypocrisy/most dissonance and took the shortest showers

42
Q

Application of dissonance theory:

Ex: Weightloss

A

Dv: Weight lost

Cons:

1) High effort (crazy strenuous tasks), low level of choice
2) High effort, high level of choice
3) low effort (easy tasks), low level of choice
4) low effort, high level of choice
5) control

Results:

  • Commitment and mindfulness group felt most dissonance and lost the most weight
  • Wanted amount of effort in lab to coincide w weightloss
43
Q

Persuasion Techniques:

Foot in the door

Ex: Voters

A
  • called people before and asked “are you going to vote” (experimental or didn’t call (control)
  • Dv: who showed up to vote

Results:
-People who were called first should up to vote more

Conclusion:
-Foot in the door technique. People wanted to be CONSISTENT and felt COMMITED

44
Q

Persuasion Techniques:

Foot in the door

do u have to do small favor or say you will for effect to work?

A

You actually have to do it

45
Q

Why do ppl agree?

Foot in the door

That’s not all

Lowballing

Door in the face

A

Foot in the door:
-Consistency and commitment

That’s not all:
-Reciprocity

Lowballing:
-Consistency and commitment

Door in the face:
-Reciprocity

46
Q

Social validation:

A

-based on conformity

  • Conformity increases:
  • As # of people doing it increase
  • If we are more similar to the other people
47
Q

Why do we reciprocate?

A

we like our relationship to be equal

Exchange relationships: want it back immediately
Close relationships: want it back when we need it (no rush)

48
Q

Door in the face

Ex: Boy scout selling

A

1st request $5 circus tickets, received a no, then offered $1 chocolate bar and got a yes

Results:
Boy scout compromised so person felt like they had to as well (reciprocate)

49
Q

Door in the face

Ex: Zoo trip

A

Cons:

1) asked people to take juv. del. kids to zoo (control)
2. asked participants to first be big sis/bro to juv del. kids for yrs, received a no, and got asked to take them to the zoo for 1 day

Results:
group 2 said yes more often because they were reciprocating the compromise

50
Q

What’s more powerful foot in the door or door in the face?

A

Both are equally effective

51
Q

That’s not all technique:

Ex: Buy a cupcake and two cookies for a dollar?

A

Cons:

1) TNA: Cupcake for $1 and two cookies for free
2) Control: Cupcakes and 2 cookies for $1

Results:
-Most sales for TNA group, reciprocity

52
Q

Reactance

A
  • Feeling like you are losing your freedom
  • Limited availability/price
  • makes you feel like everyone wants it, so it must be high quality
53
Q

Aggression Types:

Hostile

Instrumental

Passive

A

Hostile:
-Motivated by anger and intention to hurt someone

Instrumental:
-Hurting someone along the way of trying to make your goals

Passive:
-Purposely hurting someone through lack of action

54
Q

Aggression Perspectives:

Hobbes

Roussean

Freud

A

Hobbes:
-Humans are naturally aggressive and society keep us in check

Roussean:
-Humans are naturally gentle, but the stress of society causes aggressive behavior

Freud:
-Catharsis, if you experience frustrations the healthiest thing to do is to vent those, bottling it up = aggression coming out in a dysfunctional; way

55
Q

Catharsis

A

Not supported by research

56
Q

Catharsis:

Ex: Partner essay critic

A

Dv: Rating of anger after hitting bag (aggression during noise task)

-Partner gives your essay harsh critic

Cons:

1) After hit punching bag w/ an athletes pic on it (Distraction
2) Sit and do nothing (control)
3) Hit punching bag while thinking about your partner (catharsis)

-Then play a video game w partner, when partner loses you get to play a noise in their ear for the amount of time that you desire

Results:
Catharsis group showed the most aggression during the noise task, the control showed the least

57
Q

Causes of aggression

A
  • Testosterone
  • Pain and discomfort
  • Frustration-aggression
  • Exclusion
  • Social learning theory
58
Q

Causes of aggression:

Social learning theory:

Ex: bobo dolls results

A
  • Kids saw aggressive behavior from adults = kids more aggressive actions when playing w/ doll themselves
  • No way to know if aggressive shows/media= aggressive behavior w/o doing an experiment
59
Q

Causes of aggression:

Social learning theory

Ex: Kids watch violent drama or track meet

A

Cons:

1) Watched police violent drama
2) Watched track meet

-Then partner has to catch something fast w a fishing pole, the partner that watched the film could press a green button to make them move faster and a red button to make the handle hotter

Results:
Aggressive tv= more aggressive behavior in boys and girls

60
Q

Cause of aggression:

Social learning theory

Ex: Playing video game, fake fight in the hallway

A

Dv: Time it took to help people in the hallway

Cons:

1) Playing violent video games
2) Playing nonviolent video games

Results:
Violent video game participants took longer to help

61
Q

Cause of aggression:

Social learning theory

Ex: Male college students, type of film vs aggression

A 
IV: Films watched
Cons:
1) Neutral film (male)
2) Erotic film (male)
3) Aggressive Erotic film (male)
4) Neutral film (female)
5) Erotic film (female)
6) Aggressive Erotic film (female)

-Then paired w partner that was supposed to memorize words, partner administered shocks when they made a mistake

Results:
Aggressive erotic film (female) showed the most aggression (Ex: Longer shocks)

62
Q

Preventing Aggression:

Stuff that doesn’t work

A
  • Informational appeals (most people already know the info, children reason w age)
  • Harsh punishment (Reactance, frustration when punished leads to aggression)
  • Punishment of aggressive models (Makes behavior “normal”)
63
Q

Preventing Aggression:

Stuff that works

A
  • Rewarding alternative behaviors

- Creating empathy

64
Q

Preventing Aggression:

Stuff that works

Ex: Rewarding alternative behaviors

A

Teachers approach in her classroom (all cons=same kids)

Cons:
Took measure of Baseline aggression
1) Treatment 1 (rewarding good behavior, ignoring bad)
2) No treatment (normal teaching)
3) Treatment 2 (rewarding good behavior, ignoring bad)

Results:
Aggression lower in treatment groups, ignoring bad behavior= better strategy and gives least aggressive behavior

Social Psych (4 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions